"So why do all these American reporters, who know quite well that they get praise and money for doing what Assange has done, stand in a silence that can only be called cowardly, while a fellow publisher faces threats of extradition, banning, prosecution for spying - which can incur the death penalty - and calls for his assassination? [...] U.S. journalism's business model is collapsing; the people who should be out in front defending Assange are facing cut salaries or unemployment because of the medium that Assange represents. These journalists are not willing to concede that Assange is, of course, a publisher, rather than some sort of hybrid terrorist blogger, because of their self-interested prejudices against a medium in which they are not the gatekeepers." Great article - focussing on the US, but just as applicable in the rest of the world (except the great nation of Iceland, obviously). The internet could very well become the single most important 'invention' in human history. We must stand guard against our governments getting their filthy, inefficient, censoring, controlling, and damaging hands on it.

Software that can be distributed between friends legally; can be audited without NDA; is managed with full transparency for developers and users alike; which has consistantly delivered faster patch times after bug reports; available from vendors who do not try to strip rights away from copyright purely for the purpose of profit at the user's expense..

Nah.. can't at all see what these FOSS people are on to suggest that the development model has merit. Heck, even if your not using a FOSS produced OS; you pay a lower price for your Windows licenses now - your welcome.

I personally find that there is a lot of talk about all this all over the internet on quite a few different forums about Anarchy etc ... It is completely pointless, most people aren't clever enough to understand or care, and the rest just don't care.

I love reading posts where people spend 3 paragraphs to let us know how little they care.

Extra red herring points for using the term "academic" as a pejorative.

And this may come to a complete shock to you, but some people can multitask between the ability to have and hold a job, and discuss important socio/economic/political events. I know it seems inconceivable, but... it is true!

"Or as Mr. Assange told Time magazine last week, 'It is not our goal to achieve a more transparent society; it's our goal to achieve a more just society.' If leaks cause U.S. officials to 'lock down internally and to balkanize,' they will 'cease to be as efficient as they were.'"

And the kicker:

"When the New York Times published the Pentagon Papers, its stated objective was to make the federal government more transparent and more responsive in the hope that it would better serve the American people. Assange, on the other hand, wants to close the federal government, to make it more opaque and insulated until it can no longer serve the American people.

It's a bit ironic to see Massie and all the reporters at the Frontline Club, all of whom hail from a nation still living under the Official Secrets Act, rushing to the defense of a man who openly seeks the destruction of a government that guarantees press freedom, and all in the name of 'journalism.'"

Personally I think he is a turd. But the man is doing something that is protected in this country, that has been done by news agencies in this country, and has always been historically promoted in this country. That we have members of Congress calling for his assassination is yet another clear sign that the nation is no longer working for the people. And while I don't think we need to abolish our government like the declaration of independence says we could, forcing several hundred politicians out of DC would be a good start.

The point is that. We can safely assume him to be a bastard, because his personality has nothing to with the issues threating wikileaks. Freedom of speech is much more important than personality.

Being able to defend the rights people you don't like is the fundamental essence of an unbiased mind.

Personally I am inclined to hate him, just because that would make it much easier to focus on the cause and not the person. Though, having realised that about myself, I am choosing instead not to care about his person.

"Or as Mr. Assange told Time magazine last week, 'It is not our goal to achieve a more transparent society; it's our goal to achieve a more just society.' If leaks cause U.S. officials to 'lock down internally and to balkanize,' they will 'cease to be as efficient as they were.'"

I would interpret these two thoughts as separate, but related.

The first goal is "to achieve a more just society". Probably by trying to make governments more accountable and open.

However, one must aknowledge that governments might react the oposite way to what was hoped. They might 'lock down internally and to balkanize'. Assange is perhaps saying that if that happens, then at least the governments won't be as efficient at doing these objectionable things as they once were.

However, one must aknowledge that governments might react the oposite way to what was hoped. They might 'lock down internally and to balkanize'. Assange is perhaps saying that if that happens, then at least the governments won't be as efficient at doing these objectionable things as they once were.

Along the same lines, if a government wants to keep something a secret, it must act as if the thing is a secret. It can't be a secret shared with millions of civil servants. It can't be a secret on paper only in order to suppress open court cases. It must actually be a secret, and treated like a secret.

So far what we've seen from Wikileaks are primarily things that are officially secret, but are actually widely known.

"However, one must aknowledge that governments might react the oposite way to what was hoped. They might 'lock down internally and to balkanize'. Assange is perhaps saying that if that happens, then at least the governments won't be as efficient at doing these objectionable things as they once were.

Along the same lines, if a government wants to keep something a secret, it must act as if the thing is a secret. It can't be a secret shared with millions of civil servants. It can't be a secret on paper only in order to suppress open court cases. It must actually be a secret, and treated like a secret. So far what we've seen from Wikileaks are primarily things that are officially secret, but are actually widely known. "

So far IMO what we have seen from Wikileaks are things that are officially secret but which sholud not be a secret and/or should never have been done in the first place.

I believe that Richard Nixon once said something like: "If it is the President who does something, then it is not a crime".

Well, that must be that "great" government that puts peace-activists on not-allowed-to-fly-by-plane-anymore lists or which puts people into jail without any kind of trial or which sends out secret-service people because you expressed your right of free speech to question the official loophole-stories. So "technically" you're still free to say whatever you want, you just have to take the consequences for it, heh.

I agree with you that the American news media are worse than useless, that the treatment of Bradley Manning is heinous, that the Swedish charges are suspicious. But the US doesn't have an Official Secrets Act like the UK does, and it's difficult to see what Assange could be prosecuted for in the US. Simply receiving leaked classified material and publishing it is something American journalists do on a regular basis.

There's no death penalty for spying that could be imposed here. If anything were to happen to Assange, it would be extra-legal; some of the people connected with the security services in the US, as well as in a number of other countries that Wikileaks has angered, are basically thugs.

While I agree on general lines with your arguments, I would add the following points:

* Recent track, like Guantanamo prisoners detention conditions, cast a worrying stain on the legal system on USA and its ethics. I think they would not apply the same rules, or lack of thereof, to Assange because he is internationally famous and also because he is a Australian citizen, but I have no idea what they would come with and have a suspicion that they would try something - at least to save face, like "see, you are guilt of this and that, but as an act of good faith, will leave you walk free provided that you recognize you were wrong, begs for pardon, stop publishing any other things you still have, give names to us and pay this bill", on same line used on to be remembered Mcarthyism tragic era;

* Not all USA media is useless, just the big ones. If you search on Internet you will find lots of both, good and bad journalism on USA. I used to go to propeller.com to read about lots of things and the best part used to be the antagonist opinions, but AOL canned it (why? hum ...).

I read a long article on NYTimes a couple of days ago about the leaked things and Assange. While I agree on many things with the article, I also assign to envy many of personal comments directed to Assange. Some may not know, but Assange asked for help to publish things on a responsible way, even though he was a bit ingenuous about what the edited material would be when published. He should have predicted the outcome.

I just wan't to clarify something. There is no conspiracy, Swedish authorities is not planning on sending Assange to the United States. The reason for why Sweden wants to get Assange sent to them is that there have been allegations against him and they want to question him about it. He is not charged with anything yet so it is not like he is a fugitive or anything. They only want to question him about the events regarding this alleged rape.

Sweden is not a corrupted country. We don't just send innocent people to other countries without good reason. Our legal system is one of the better in protecting it's citizens rights and especially their right to free speech. Why do you think Assange wanted to have Sweden as the homebase for Wikileaks? The media makes us sound like some sort of fascists. This is as far from the truth as can be.

He is not charged with anything yet so it is not like he is a fugitive or anything. They only want to question him about the events regarding this alleged rape.

He has been arrested and detained, set free on a ridiculously high bail, has to wear an ankle bracelet and report to authorities every morning at 6 AM and all of that without being charged because you friendly Swedes just want to ask him some questions. The Swedish police actually already questioned him about the alleged rapes and the original prosecutor was not even willing to make a case. Indict him already if you believe you have a case.

Sweden is not a corrupted country.We don't just send innocent people to other countries without good reason. Our legal system is one of the better in protecting it's citizens rights and especially their right to free speech. Why do you think Assange wanted to have Sweden as the homebase for Wikileaks? The media makes us sound like some sort of fascists. This is as far from the truth as can be.

Get you head out of your ass please. Sweden is acting as a puppet of the USA. No way would you otherwise use Interpol if you only want to question someone. You should read some Franz Kafka.

Get you head out of your ass please. Sweden is acting as a puppet of the USA. No way would you otherwise use Interpol if you only want to question someone. You should read some Franz Kafka.

Wow you sure sound confident. How can you be so very sure this is true? It could not possible be that we contacted organisations abroad because he wasn't actually in Sweden at the time? Don't know if we had anything to do with Interpol but Scotland Yard yes.

Well, we'll see what happens. And why should I read Franz Kafka? I've started on the Trial but it was so incredibly boring.

Or so we Swedes like to tell ourselves. At best Sweden is not as corrupt as some other countries.

We don't just send innocent people to other countries without good reason.

Yes we do. I seem to remember the recent issue over christian iraqis being sent back.

Our legal system is one of the better in protecting it's citizens rights and especially their right to free speech.

True but that doesn't mean mistakes aren't made and sometimes the Swedish government can be incredibly wrongheaded. See Anders Alhmark, for example.
Isn't it also amazingly timely that these allegations appear at this point in time? Some would questions such a lucky co-incidence.

The media makes us sound like some sort of fascists. This is as far from the truth as can be.

Maybe not as far as can be. With the creepy popularity of Sverige Demokraterna you could argue that fascism is on the rise in Sweden.

I agree with you that the American news media are worse than useless, that the treatment of Bradley Manning is heinous, that the Swedish charges are suspicious. But the US doesn't have an Official Secrets Act like the UK does, and it's difficult to see what Assange could be prosecuted for in the US. Simply receiving leaked classified material and publishing it is something American journalists do on a regular basis.

I'm sure the US could trump up some kind of terrorism charges. Or even worse yet, change legislation to give themselves powers to charge him.

If anything, Wikileaks has increased my respect for the traditional media. The leaks have confirmed that all those lines in news reports that read "our correspondent reports that" or "one anonymous government source claims that"--you know, the ones where they don't know enough to claim it as categorically true and yet wouldn't want to leave you out of the lurch--have actually turned out to be completely true. It's a testament to the professionalism and sleuthing skill of some reporters.

Obviously, I'm not talking about Fox News, but Fox isn't traditional at all. To claim that the traditional US media is "less than worthless" is sheer hyperbole.

You are aware, of course, that the most traditional US media source of all, the New York Times, is collaborating with Wikileaks to publish the cables?

His true crime is going against those in power. The U.S. is not a nation of law even though most still may believe so. Suspension of habeas corpus, implementation of the Patriot Act among many other things are clear violations of the constitution. This along with gun control, ongoing spying on it's citizens communications (carnivore, illegal wiretaps, , etc) means flat out the legal system does not obey it's own laws. This means breaking the law is rather irrelevant and the real crime is offending those in power. This may be why tax protesters, peace activists, conservative rights groups (libertarians), copyright opponents and infringers are some of the most watched and persecuted groups in the U.S.

I'm sure this sounds crazy to most "typical Americans" but you might want to READ the constitution. In particular:

Gun Control:
It clearly states "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" (amendment 2). This means EVERYONE can bear arms unconditionally (hence not infringed).

Freedom of Speech:
"Congress shall make no law .... abridging the freedom of speech" (Amendment 1). No law meaning no secrecy laws or other means to stop the dissemination of information. That means there is NOTHING to stop spreading "classified" information, circumventing anti-copying measures and a whole bunch of other activities that we have lesser laws against.

Is that what you see being the case in the U.S.? It's not what I see and since they did not change the highest laws in the land I can only assume they are not abiding by them. Seems pretty clear and simple to me.

I should point out many (most?) other countries are no better. I was living in Germany and Canada when they in essence suspended personal freedoms for NATO and G8 summits respectively. If the law can be suspended when it's no longer convenient to those in power is it really law at all?

The second amendment is actually: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It is ironic that most well organized militias are probably not that necessary to the security of the free state if not directly opposed. This amendment was of course formulated in a totally different time and context. It's funny to see you hold up unconditional gun possession as a positive thing and gun regulation as the violation of your constitutional rights.

I am not holding it up as a positive thing. Your point is exactly the problem I am talking about. People determine if it is a good or bad thing and change the interpretation to support their claims rather than enforce it as it is stated. The law as stated seems rather clear to me. I make no judgment on whether this is a good or bad thing. If you wish to have meaning to your laws they should be clear and enforced. If you don't like the law change it to CLEARLY state the new desired effect. Creative interpretation is what removes the meaning to ALL laws.

Can you show me in the second amendment what exactly seems to allow for requiring permits, restricting what weapons by types or even restricting them based on criminal history. I just don't see any indication that would be allowed under that amendment as written. Mind you I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm merely stating that reading it I see no provision for these restrictions.

So first you tell us about 1 case to support gun-allowance and then you say that "numbers of misuse are statistically meaningless in comparison".

You have a very weird way of arguing!

I disagree with gun-allowance by normal people but it is in your constitution so it is your right. I also agree that this is obviously not lived up to and should be changed so the law is the law again!

(the reason why I am against gun-ownership is because I traveled the world and seen all kind of different systems. The ones without general gun-ownership generally seem better of. Add to that that especially the USA seems not able to handle their guns in a good way (compare Canada or Belgium where there are far less problems and crime) and it seems obvious to me that it would be better for the USA in general to put guns under tight control.

Restricting weapons possession has always been a means of governments to disempower the populace and to strengthen its own power-base. History has show this to be true in many times and countries.
The right to keep and bear arms has been put in the US constitution because this fact was recognized by the writers of the constitution.
It is no wonder that the US government is now trying to change this in their attempt to stay in power unchecked.

It is not about me, I am neither a US citizen nor do I own a gun.
Of course it is always precarious trying to second guess original intentions of people writing something long ago. Maybe they didn't intend for every citizen to be allowed to carry a gun. My guess is they were internally divided on the issue. The version of the 2nd amendment that was passed by the Congress reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This reading is inclining more towards "the people" not being restricted to militia.

The fact remains that restrictions on arms possession is an important means of control for governments. I think this is a very noteworthy issue, often overlooked by people opposed to liberal gun laws.

Its often struck me as odd that some who’s political creed would seem to suggest that the withering away of state power was a laudable aim, also wish to restrict the rights of the individual to bare arms so that only the state and its armed bodies of men has that right - odd no?

It clearly states "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" (amendment 2). This means EVERYONE can bear arms unconditionally (hence not infringed).

I find it telling you left out the "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" part of the second ammendment. Also no where is the word "gun" mentioned, only "arms" Arms can mean any number of things, including missiles, bombs, and even nuclear weapons. So we either accept that their are limitations to the second ammendment or we have to allow ANYONE access to any weapon imaginable. Regardless of what a revered 200+ year old document says that's just STUPID.

"Congress shall make no law .... abridging the freedom of speech" (Amendment 1). No law meaning no secrecy laws or other means to stop the dissemination of information. That means there is NOTHING to stop spreading "classified" information, circumventing anti-copying measures and a whole bunch of other activities that we have lesser laws against.

The courts have already decided that there are limitations like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. You can either choose to accept this or take a fundamental approach and live in a completely fucked up society. Your choice.

Your argument seems to be that the law should not be enforced as written because it is a bad law as stated. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with this because it bears no relevance to the statement I made.

Basically what I was saying is:
if enforced laws = written laws you are a nation of law
if enforced law != written law you are not a nation of law

This is all I was trying to point out.

I'm not saying you should keep the existing laws nor commenting at all on the merit of them merely starting that they should be changed to match what is being enforced or the enforced should be changed to match what is written. That or simply remove the law completely at that level.

The only purpose I can see to have written law != enforced law is to delude the citizenry, create confusion. Either way you are no longer a nation of law at this point.

I hope this clarifies what my original point was. I'm not arguing free speech or gun control merely using these two points to show what is written is not what is enforced.

I should also mention that the constitution includes methods to amend it further so there is a clear process laid out to allow this. It has been done many times, the most recent addition (ratified) in 1992.

FYI: the reason I did not include "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" part of the second amendment is that this clause merely provides justification for the actual right granting clause of "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed". It is NOT a conditional clause nor limiting in any way but merely says WHY they do this which does not really concern the statement and point I was trying to make. I hope this clarifies my motives for leaving it out.

Your argument seems to be that the law should not be enforced as written because it is a bad law as stated.

Then you misunderstood. Language is imperfect. The same words can be interpreted differently based on context and intention.

FYI: the reason I did not include "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" part of the second amendment is that this clause merely provides justification for the actual right granting clause of "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed". It is NOT a conditional clause nor limiting in any way but merely says WHY they do this which does not really concern the statement and point I was trying to make. I hope this clarifies my motives for leaving it out.

If the cluase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is merely a justification then why do all the other ammendments lack any such construction? It seems pretty odd to include the justification for an ammendment in the ammendment itself. It would be the one and only time and quite extraneous as far as law goes.

"Your argument seems to be that the law should not be enforced as written because it is a bad law as stated.

Then you misunderstood. Language is imperfect. The same words can be interpreted differently based on context and intention. "

Your quote "So we either accept that their are limitations to the second ammendment or we have to allow ANYONE access to any weapon imaginable" seems to indicate that you had a similar understanding as I did of the meaning as stated but felt you must limit it to keep it to keep it from being "STUPID". If that was not your intended meaning, please clarify.

If the cluase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is merely a justification then why do all the other ammendments lack any such construction? It seems pretty odd to include the justification for an ammendment in the ammendment itself. It would be the one and only time and quite extraneous as far as law goes.

I agree none of the other amendments include a justification clause but I also can read and this seems to do just that. What is your impression of the purpose of that clause? Do you think it somehow limits the following clause? If so, how?

Your quote "So we either accept that their are limitations to the second ammendment or we have to allow ANYONE access to any weapon imaginable" seems to indicate that you had a similar understanding as I did of the meaning as stated but felt you must limit it to keep it to keep it from being "STUPID". If that was not your intended meaning, please clarify.

No I did not have a similar understanding. My point is that if you accept the idea that the 2nd amendment allows for unfettered access to "arms" then you must allow the ownership of all forms of weapons to anyone. I do not think that is the intent of the second amendment and neither did the men who wrote it. That's why they included the "militia" clause because they were NOT stupid.

The Bill of Rights wasn't just a first draft. The second amendment itself was rewritten several times. Every word in it has meaning and intent. The men who wrote and re-wrote it slaved over the right choice of words. It seems quite improbable that they just left in extraneous information. All of the amendments are quite short and to the point. The 2nd amendment would be an anomoly if the "militia" clause was merely a justification for the amendment itself. It's also telling that not only does the 2nd amendment refer to a militia, but a "well regulated" one. What is the point of these words if it is merely a justification?

I agree none of the other amendments include a justification clause but I also can read and this seems to do just that. What is your impression of the purpose of that clause? Do you think it somehow limits the following clause? If so, how?

It sure does limit the right to ownership of guns as well as other arms. It limits them to a "well regulated militia". This isn't to say that no one can own a gun except someone who belongs to a "well regulated militia". It just means that state and federal laws that limit or ban ownership of certain weapons are constitutionally legal.

It sure does limit the right to ownership of guns as well as other arms. It limits them to a "well regulated militia". This isn't to say that no one can own a gun except someone who belongs to a "well regulated militia". It just means that state and federal laws that limit or ban ownership of certain weapons are constitutionally legal.

Your logic escapes me here. According to your interpretation the clause about the "well regulated militia" is a limiting clause. This would exactly mean that ONLY those currently in a "well-regulated militia" would be allowed to "keep and bear arms". I do not see how you come to the conclusion that this allows anyone to have weapons but regulations to be placed on it, especially if they are part of no militia at all.

In addition to your assertion I would disagree on your interpretation for a couple reasons.

1. It is widely documented that a large portion of the population of the U.S. at that time were private gun owners (both part of and having nothing to do with militias).

I'm sorry but by your logic and reading of the amendment the government has the right to impose ANY restrictions it wishes. If we assume the founding fathers did indeed take such care with the rights then there is really no reason to include it if the government can restrict it as they see fit. The ONLY purpose of making it an amendment is if it stands absolute (unrestricted) as is the case with ALL amendments that are part of the bill of rights. Barring the inclusion of the amendment government is free to place whatever conditions it wishes through additional laws. The only purpose it stands it to limit the government from placing ANY limitation on the bearing of arms.

I fully agree with what WikiLeaks is trying to do. Showing the public what governments do behind your back, and think we [as the public] cannot handle the truth, or shouldn't know the truth. As for WikiLeaks targeting the US - well they just seem to cause the most sh*t, so why not target them first. I'm not a US citizen, but looking at documentaries like "Loose Change: 2nd edition", I'm glad I'm not. The US government thinks it's OK to slaughter it's own citizens in 9/11 for their own agendas! Then causing a war for no apparent reason [no real truth], and slaughtering other countries citizens. US [and other countries] journalists should dig deeper in what their own government is doing, otherwise websites like WikiLeaks will! So don't blame WikiLeaks or Assange [he is just the messenger] for simply uncovering and publishing the truth.

Watch documentaries like "Loose Change: 2nd edition", and a few others... I believe "Loose Change" is available via YouTube or Torrents as well. There are overwhelming evidence that the 9-11 attacks were an inside job done by the USA government itself - giving them the much needed funding for the military, and putting unjust fear in the US citizens. The US government has left a lot to be answered for... So why all the secrecy, if they have nothing to hide about the 9-11 attacks?

wikileaks didn't really damage the US, its generally a free and open society where accusations against political individuals and parties are constantly being made. What its done is to destabilize already unstable countries who happened have dealings with the US. Tunisia is a good example of this.

I just have some case in Holland. Computable is a dutch IT paper with a website. The editors over there delete or change reactions of their readers, so you cannot trust that anymore. The site, in dutch, is www.computable.nl, I have started to put my uncensored reactions also on www.compute-ability.nl. That link is of course deleted as "unallowed add".

Assange started Wilileaks with noble and idealistic goals of revealing everyones' secrets, but since descended into an anti-US outfit. Have you read what's in the leaked cables? They contain less of scandalous acts, and more about state-to-state communiques from other countries that need help with a particular issue. Think about it, we really haven't found a smoking gun, just introspection into how the US State department views and interacts with other countries -- totally benign if you ask me. I think that's where a lot of people misunderstand Wikileaks, because they believe it reveals something new, but really just confirms their anti-US bias because it's been an anti-US act.

Then Thom wraps it all up in a "ohhh, we need to save the noble reporters! for shame!" to give our expected outcry some purpose. Maybe Thom can fit Keith Olbermann's timeslot on MSNBC.

1) I think you should re-read what Wikileaks has done. There's a boatload of non-US stuff in there.

2) And maybe - just maybe - Wikileaks covers the US a lot because, I don't know, the US government (not the people) is composed of people with questionable morals? Bush openly admitted - without regret or remorse - that he approved torture, for instance. The US is simply a very untrustworthy nation, with a lot of people high up in the government that ought to appear before an international court of law.

Also, the US, supposedly an ally of ours, has invasion plans against my country. I'm sorry, but if there is one country that needs to be brought down a peg, it's the US. At least countries like China are open about what they are and what they are not.

So, you just tell me to re-read reports, what, until I agree with you, because you're correct?

And your entire 2nd point is completely off-topic with my original post and your article, and frankly shows your naked prejudiced reasons for posting these anti-US articles.

I don't disagree that the US has flaws and flawed people, most I believe won't. But the real point that you've dodged is that these cables simply do not reveal anything new that we did not already know. Rather, people like yourself treat it like some massive revelation and that now is the downward turning point for the United States, when it's what you've secretly wanted for a long time.

I'm fine with bringing those people before a judge, but if you think the leaked documents reveal who they are, then they've missed the mark. All they were intended to do is to harm the relationships between the US and other countries, and then isolate the US.

Lastly, of course the US has invasion plans to a lot of countries, but that's what you do with a massive defense budget. I think it's done more of an exercise so the US can think as devious as any other country that might want to invade the US.

I do laugh at you comparing the US to the openness of China though. Go and ask them about being open to acknowledging Taiwan and Tibet, them jailing the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize Winner Liu Xiaobo, etc... oh Thom, you kill me.

But the real point that you've dodged is that these cables simply do not reveal anything new that we did not already know.

Then why the witch hunt? Why hate Assange for revealing something you apparently already knew? If you claim all this information was known anyway, then the US' attempts at trying to silence him are even worse.

I do laugh at you comparing the US to the openness of China though. Go and ask them about being open to acknowledging Taiwan and Tibet, them jailing the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize Winner Liu Xiaobo, etc... oh Thom, you kill me.

I'm not comparing their openness. I'm actually contrasting them. China is not open and free, but is honest about that. They don't claim to be a free and open nation. The US, on the other hand, claims to be free and open, while in fact they're decidedly not.

Tell me - which is easier to work with and trust - a country you know is not free and open but doesn't claim to be, or a country which claims to be free and open but in fact isn't?

Lastly, of course the US has invasion plans to a lot of countries, but that's what you do with a massive defense budget. I think it's done more of an exercise so the US can think as devious as any other country that might want to invade the US.

It's more than plans actually. It's a law. Ever heard of the The Hague Invasion Act?

Can you blame me for mistrusting a nation that has a law which orders them to invade my own country (a supposed ally) if the International Criminal Court - a widely recognised UN body - were to ever hold an American soldier? Until said act is repealed, I, as a Dutch citizen, have every reason to consider the US government a threat to the sovereignty and safety of my own country.

Politicians are stupid and stupid things are done - undoubted American foreign has on occasion been both stupid and unethical – However, I feel that one needs to visit the war graves of American dead at the Normandy landing sights before one questions the US commitment to European freedom.

uhh waterboarding isn't torture. How do you twist that around??? Our own government used to waterboard its own people to show them interrogation techniques...torture is something entirely different.

Yes it is torture. We (the US) declared waterboarding as torture during WWII. Just because we train some soldiers to withstand it doesn't mean it isn't torture. It's completely different when the situation is controlled and voluntary.

And maybe - just maybe - Wikileaks covers the US a lot because, I don't know, the US government (not the people) is composed of people with questionable morals?

I guess you missed the part where WikiLeaks exposed the fact that the US foreign service was actually performing quite well and fairly compared to other nations. Some poor choices were made during the Bush administration but the proof is in the pudding and the US is actually living up to what it is saying in public concerning foreign affairs.

It has become almost common knowledge that everyone in the US government is corrupt but that's just BS. Every other nation has at least as many issues with corruption and moral depravity. Some are even worse, including some western countries. The US just has the biggest target on its back. It's a lot easier and more self assuring to find fault with the big bad United States than it is with most other western countries.

Also, the US, supposedly an ally of ours, has invasion plans against my country. I'm sorry, but if there is one country that needs to be brought down a peg, it's the US. At least countries like China are open about what they are and what they are not.

The US military has invasion plans against every country including Canada and Antarctica, which isn't even a country. They've even war-gamed alien invasion scenarios.

The military would be neglecting their duty if they did otherwise. Strange things happen in real life and being prepared is always better than not.

Now, I doubt that your country has realistic plans to invade and conquer the US (although they might, something tricky like nuclear C&C decapitation strikes blamed on someone else plus stirring up an invasion from Mexico, come in as a UN peacekeeping force to "help" and end up conquering, for some value of it).

I would bet that your government does have plans for infiltration and commando operations in the US. After all, what if they didn't plan for it and the need suddenly came up to arrest an international criminal hiding out or being protected in the US? Without plans already made it could take too much time to do.

I must be living in a parallel world, one where people actually read media outlets before talking about what they do or don't say.

The government has no business indicting someone who is not a spy and who is not legally bound to keep its secrets. Doing so would criminalize the exchange of information and put at risk responsible media organizations that vet and verify material and take seriously the protection of sources and methods when lives or national security are endangered.

New York Times executive editor Bill Keller may not regard Julian Assange as a journalistic peer, but he made clear Thursday that he doesn’t think the WikiLeaks founder should face criminal prosecution in the United States. ...“Whatever one thinks of Julian Assange, certainly American journalists, and other journalists, should feel a sense of alarm at any legal action that tends to punish Assange for doing essentially what journalists do. That is to say, any use of the law to criminalize the publication of secrets.”

The most important argument against prosecuting Assange, however, is that doing so would undermine freedom of the press. Penalties have been imposed in the past on government employees who have leaked confidential information, but not on the reporters or editors who published it. Is Assange a journalist? Assuming that he received and published information rather than obtaining it on his own, the answer seems to us to be yes. In principle, we can't see a difference between WikiLeaks and one of the newspapers that published the information.

I get the same. I thought it might because I am outside the US, but I am happy to see that the classic free media is also retaining their sanity in the US. Too bad the free media is getting marginalized and more and more people gets the impression the unbiased media is the most biased because everyone else tells them it is.

He's liable under the laws of his own country and possibly what countries he goes to. The US itself should discover who passed him the information from inside and they should likely be executed since it appears some of the information passed may well result in people's deaths. This is a huge internal breach. If assange were a US citizen he would also be liable for some intentional damage. Journalists should realize that they are citizens of the country they live in and bear responsibility towards that or else be held liable like anyone else for damage done...they should not act as acessories to crimes and expect to walk free just because they are "journalists". How this is carried out of course does rely on the integrety of the legal system to be discerning in these cases.

You don't think providing a view of what the government is doing behind the citizen's back is taking responsibility for the country one lives in? Wouldn't it be more irresponsible to let one's own government run rampant over the founding values of the nation and it's laws?

The internet could very well become the single most important 'invention' in human history. We must stand guard against our governments getting their filthy, inefficient, censoring, controlling, and damaging hands on it.

If you really believed in what you say you would not use those words. Or you don't understand human psychology or you think noone of consequence will read it (which may be true) or you want war.

I understand in advance that I'll probably be modded into oblivion for saying this but 1. Julian Assange is NOT a journalist. and 2. He is DANGEROUS. Journalism isn't about just plopping down monstrous amounts of top secret and confidential information for all to see. Journalists try to find a story that they think people need to hear. They don't just indiscriminately release confidential information for the hell of it. They have ETHICAL standards. Assange does not. I appreciate some of the things WikiLeaks has brought to the public consciousness but he has gone too far in some cases, endangering the lives of civilians.

I really don't understand why people treat Assange like a hero. Not only is WikiLeaks void of any ethical standard, it (and Assange) has not taken a side either. His only intent seems to be to release confidential information regardless of the consequences to anyone. Any jackass can do that. Journalism takes a hell of a lot more effort.

That explains why they've asked for help in releasing information responsably then only released it after help was denied.. also explains why the are working with NY Times to release information responsibly.. it's all because they're just being irresponsible and dumping information into public view without any consideration.

That explains why they've asked for help in releasing information responsably then only released it after help was denied.. also explains why the are working with NY Times to release information responsibly.. it's all because they're just being irresponsible and dumping information into public view without any consideration.

That's an assinine excuse. "No one would help us be responsible so we said 'fuck all' and just endangered people's lives for no other reason than spite". Regardless of any reason you can give WikiLeaks has obviously not done enough because civilian names were released and people were put at risk. That's NOT journalism and it's NOT ethical. I have NO issue with releasing information pertaining to illegal war activities perpetrated by ANY state including my own but the ends DO not justify the means...EVER. Journalism takes a level of responsibility that Assange just doesn't have or even cares about.

That's an assinine excuse. "No one would help us be responsible so we said 'fuck all' and just endangered people's lives for no other reason than spite". Regardless of any reason you can give WikiLeaks has obviously not done enough because civilian names were released and people were put at risk. That's NOT journalism and it's NOT ethical. I have NO issue with releasing information pertaining to illegal war activities perpetrated by ANY state including my own but the ends DO not justify the means...EVER. Journalism takes a level of responsibility that Assange just doesn't have or even cares about.

there was no evidence whatsoever for that accusation: we have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan

"U.S. officials concede that they have no evidence to date" that the disclosures resulted in the deaths of anyone, and she detailed the great care WikiLeaks took in that Iraq War release to protect innocent people

The Salon article you linked to only says that "similar disclosures have not always led to violence". So it's all hunky dory because people are not always assasinated? That doesn't absolve WikiLeaks. The same article quotes an anti-secrecy agent as saying that WikiLeaks is "putting people in jeapardy". The other articles are more of the same. People haven't died yet so it's ok. It's still unethical and dangerous, and certainly not journalism.

The Salon article you linked to only says that "similar disclosures have not always led to violence". So it's all hunky dory because people are not always assasinated? That doesn't absolve WikiLeaks. The same article quotes an anti-secrecy agent as saying that WikiLeaks is "putting people in jeapardy". The other articles are more of the same. People haven't died yet so it's ok. It's still unethical and dangerous, and certainly not journalism.

Despite the establishment claims to the contrary, Wikileaks actually went to great lengths to protect people where the US establishment point-blank refused to. Who has really failed to protect people here? If any party is being unethical and dangerous, it is clearly the US establishment.

You haven't addressed the question of why should the US government be allowed to get away with unspeakable harm to people's rights worldwide via the simple expedient of labelling (rubber stamping) anything at all which is even remotely politically embarrassing as "classified".

Where is the accountability? What "absolves" the US establishment?

Isn't it the entire function of journalism to hold the political establishment accountable?

Isn't it exactly that which Wikileaks' actions are helping to make happen?

Is it an assanine excuse for a journalist or in any possible case? I wouldn't think it an assanine excuse in terms of security research; "we reported this to the vendor several months ago and in all our follow-up contact they've consistently said they don't care and won't fix it; here's the details so the public can protect themselves." Information validly released because "they wouldn't help us". If that case is not so black and white, I can't see how the Wikileaks issue is so black and white.

In this case, I'd guess Wikileaks said "we have this whistle blower's leak and it's coming out. We'd like your help vetting and releasing the information. You can help or ignore the request and we'll release with our best efforts to remove names and such."

In the case of the diplomatic cables. I really have a hard time seeing issue with civil servants responsible to the public being visible without the usual political BS and spin. I mention them here only because that seems the least vetted release.

I'm not saying Wikileaks did all it could. I wasn't involved so it's not like I directly whitnessed the process. I'm just saying that there is a whole lot of blame to go around and focusing on Wikileaks alone, especially when they did try to get help vetting releases.

(edit); you also didn't adress this point:
"also explains why the are working with NY Times to release information responsibly"

Can I assume we're in aggrement on this point that Wikileaks was releasing information in a responsible way (or at least during there NY Times partnership)?